Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There is no evidence that vouchers improve education which should be the driving force behind any change.

That would be great if there was evidence that the staus quo was improving education. But, when public education is failing to teach the basics to our children, there needs to be a driving force toward change.

By all means, let's hold our kids hostage, forcing them to go to the school the Board of Education says they should go to, with no flexibility and no choice. Let's continue to push them along, grade to grade, even though they can't read. Let's continue to demand teachers have only education degrees, so there aren't any fresh, unindoctrinated points of view in the classroom. Let's continue to take that tax revenue and apply it to six counselors, a disciplinarian, three security guards, and four assistant principals at every school, because they contribute so much to student achievement.

"But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
- President Barack Obama

ďOver the last month or so, Iíve had several phone calls from citizens in this county concerned about the number of overdoses related to heroin. I want our citizens to know that Iím aware of this serious issue,Ē he said.

That would be great if there was evidence that the staus quo was improving education. But, when public education is failing to teach the basics to our children, there needs to be a driving force toward change.

By all means, let's hold our kids hostage, forcing them to go to the school the Board of Education says they should go to, with no flexibility and no choice. Let's continue to push them along, grade to grade, even though they can't read. Let's continue to demand teachers have only education degrees, so there aren't any fresh, unindoctrinated points of view in the classroom. Let's continue to take that tax revenue and apply it to six counselors, a disciplinarian, three security guards, and four assistant principals at every school, because they contribute so much to student achievement.

If I had said any of that you might have a point. Of course I didn't. There needs to be a driving force to fix what's broken but vouchers are not it. They will only break it further.

That would be great if there was evidence that the staus quo was improving education. But, when public education is failing to teach the basics to our children, there needs to be a driving force toward change.

By all means, let's hold our kids hostage, forcing them to go to the school the Board of Education says they should go to, with no flexibility and no choice. Let's continue to push them along, grade to grade, even though they can't read. Let's continue to demand teachers have only education degrees, so there aren't any fresh, unindoctrinated points of view in the classroom. Let's continue to take that tax revenue and apply it to six counselors, a disciplinarian, three security guards, and four assistant principals at every school, because they contribute so much to student achievement.

You think any change is good change. There's not a single scrap of evidence that this is actually good change - that is, change that produces better results. There is considerable reason to believe that it will seriously undermine the schools that are already having the most difficulty, who will be left with the special ed students, the kids with emotional and behavioral problems, the kids with disabilities, the ones who cost the most per student without providing the best test scores.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

You think any change is good change. There's not a single scrap of evidence that this is actually good change - that is, change that produces better results.

If that's the criteria, we're stuck with the status quo forever. We can't tell if the change is going to produce better results unless we make the change. We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in the bill.

How about we also define "better results." If a kid goes to some sort of magnet school and excels, is that a better result? Or, if the kids who are disinterested and disruptive and don't go to a non-public school continue to do poorly, does that make the change a bad result?

I firmly believe that refusing to change is killing our schools. The status quo isn't working. Please don't tell me we need evidence of the results of a change before the change can be attempted. "Let's just keep doing things the same old way, even though it doesn't work, because we don't have evidence that doing something else might be better."

"But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
- President Barack Obama

Or, if the kids who are disinterested and disruptive and don't go to a non-public school continue to do poorly, does that make the change a bad result?

See, that's what it always comes down to for you. The kids who don't do well, don't do well because they're bad and lack character and need to be taught a lesson. Either that, or they're being dragged down by the kids who are bad and lack character and need to be taught a lesson.

I didn't say a thing about kids who are disinterested. Some of them are disruptive, but not all disruptive kids are deserving of moral condemnation. Really. Others are not disruptive, but have physical or emotional or learning problems.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

See, that's what it always comes down to for you. The kids who don't do well, don't do well because they're bad and lack character and need to be taught a lesson.

Not what I'm saying.....well, that might in fact be what I'm saying, but it's not my intent.

My concern is that our teachers are losing the interest of the high-performing kids, because there are kids in the same classroom who haven't met the entering criteria. You can't teach multiplication and division to kids who can't add or subtract. If the classroom is half-filled with kids who need to count on their fingers to answer 3+5, guess where the teacher's attention is going?

Sadly, the high-performing kid is more likely to come from a well-educated family. And, that well-educated family is less likely to be suffering from economic hardship. So, do we punish that family because they want their kid to actually receive an education? Or, do we hold them hostage to the crummy school down the street, because it's "unfair" to allow them the choice of a better school.

If we ever go forward with Bernie's "free college for all" scheme, do we close the Ivy League schools and force everyone into Community College? Or, do we allow students (and colleges) to be selective about what student will attend which college?

"But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
- President Barack Obama

Public education has changed massively over the years and continues to do so. So no we're not stuck with the status quo.

How is this possible? JL25and3 suggested that "there's not a single scrap of evidence that this is actually good change - that is, change that produces better results." If we can't make a change unless we know what the results would be, how did changes get made? Alternatively, what's so bad about a new idea if we don't yet have evidence of its effectiveness?

Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper

If you want to make private education available to all on the same standards that public schools are held accountable to we can talk about voucher programs.

I do. And more. I'm a big proponent of measured educational standards. If tax dollars are following students to charter or private schools, they should ABSOLUTELY be held to the same standards as public schools. Without question.

Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper

Until then it is simply a transfer of funds from poor kids to middle and upper class kids.

That would be true if poor families were paying the taxes that would send the more affluent kids to better schools, but that's not how it works. The transfer would be from the middle and upper class families (the ones who pay the taxes) to the middle and upper class families. Horrors.

Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper

It simply hits the weakest and least able to protect themselves in our society the hardest at the benefit of those who generally already have the means to take care of themselves.

Vouchers don't "hit" anybody. The per-student expenditure in the public schools remains exactly the same. The only revenue that departs is the per-student revenue associated with the kids who no longer attend the school. I got news for you. There are tens of thousands of middle class families who don't have the means to send their kids to private schools. Isn't it just awful to suggest it might be a good idea to help them out?

"But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
- President Barack Obama

How is this possible? JL25and3 suggested that "there's not a single scrap of evidence that this is actually good change - that is, change that produces better results." If we can't make a change unless we know what the results would be, how did changes get made? Alternatively, what's so bad about a new idea if we don't yet have evidence of its effectiveness?

Huh? He said nothing of the sort. Vouchers are not new. The existing evidence does not show that they produce better results.

Originally Posted by Maynerd

I do. And more. I'm a big proponent of measured educational standards. If tax dollars are following students to charter or private schools, they should ABSOLUTELY be held to the same standards as public schools. Without question.

So vouchers should not be put in place now as that is currently not the case.

Originally Posted by Maynerd

That would be true if poor families were paying the taxes that would send the more affluent kids to better schools, but that's not how it works. The transfer would be from the middle and upper class families (the ones who pay the taxes) to the middle and upper class families. Horrors.

We should demand equity in public education. Changes should be for the benefit of all and not the select few. Income should not factor in.

Originally Posted by Maynerd

Vouchers don't "hit" anybody. The per-student expenditure in the public schools remains exactly the same. The only revenue that departs is the per-student revenue associated with the kids who no longer attend the school. I got news for you. There are tens of thousands of middle class families who don't have the means to send their kids to private schools. Isn't it just awful to suggest it might be a good idea to help them out?

The expenditure per student is not spent per student. It is spent on the overall school. So fewer students means less to spend on teacher salaries, building maintenance, etc. Losing that money to private schools would absolutely affect the public schools in a negabive way. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Maynerd's arguments on school choice can be summed up in the following sentence. I got mine, you get yours.

I went to public schools. My kids went to public schools. My tax dollars go to public schools.

I spent several years on my local School Board's Budget Committee. I saw first-hand out-of-control Administrative spending that did nothing to forward student achievement. I saw under-utilized school buildings that screamed for closure and consolidation. I saw the very positive effect of reducing class size. And, I saw the tragedy of an ever-growing number of intelligent kids who were losing interest because the curriculum didn't challenge them, and they got their grade primarily on no-value-added busy work.

Yes, I got a much better undergraduate education than my widowed, working Mother could ever have afforded. And, I agreed to serve my Country for at least five years to get that education. So yes, I got mine. But there was still a price tag. If you want to put a price tag on educational choice, go for it. Maybe only 80% of the per-student revenue follows the student. Maybe there's some sort of community service obligation tied to the money. I'm open to suggestions. I'm just not open to holding our youth hostage to a neighborhood school that fails in providing them an education.

I still don't understand the point of view that says we should be able to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and we should be able to choose what kind of birth control our employer needs to pay for, but the very suggestion that we should be able to choose what school to send our children to is "sickening."

"But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
- President Barack Obama

Tax funds for public education being used to support religious institutions seems to me to be a definite violation. I think James Madison would agree with me.

I'm hoping someone will file suit over this.

Originally Posted by JL25and3

See, that's what it always comes down to for you. The kids who don't do well, don't do well because they're bad and lack character and need to be taught a lesson. Either that, or they're being dragged down by the kids who are bad and lack character and need to be taught a lesson.

I didn't say a thing about kids who are disinterested. Some of them are disruptive, but not all disruptive kids are deserving of moral condemnation. Really. Others are not disruptive, but have physical or emotional or learning problems.

Yes. All of this. Not all kids are able bodied and neurotypical.

I'm baffled that anyone could read that letter from those teachers to our awful governor and STILL think this is a good plan. It's a handout to the rich at the expense of the poor. The whole thing makes me so angry.

I'm baffled that anyone could read that letter from those teachers to our awful governor and STILL think this is a good plan.

I was with the tone of the letter until here..."Arizonaís children deserve adequate and equal funding." They do, but the problem seems to be with the adequacy of funding, not the equality. Vouchers would only serve to keep the state-sponsored funding equal for those who opt out of public education. Equality.

Followed by "We ask that you donít deprive our students of a public school education by starving our public schools in the name of choice." I find this sentence to be absurd and insincere. No one is suggesting anyone is going to be deprived of a public education. And, no one is suggesting schools will be starved. Will there be ANY students who continue with public education? Yep. In fact, the great majority of them will. And those students will bring the same revenue to their schools as they do now.

Originally Posted by jlw1980

It's a handout to the rich at the expense of the poor. The whole thing makes me so angry.

It's not at the expense of the poor. The poor aren't paying their share of a rich kid going to a private school. No one is taking anything away from the poor. All that's being suggested is that if the rich, or the middle class, want to send their kids to a better school, the state will assist, to the same amount as it would have assisted with their public education. And, guess what? The poor can take advantage of this too, with scholarship assistance from those same private schools.

"But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
- President Barack Obama

I was with the tone of the letter until here..."Arizonaís children deserve adequate and equal funding." They do, but the problem seems to be with the adequacy of funding, not the equality. Vouchers would only serve to keep the state-sponsored funding equal for those who opt out of public education. Equality.

Followed by "We ask that you donít deprive our students of a public school education by starving our public schools in the name of choice." I find this sentence to be absurd and insincere. No one is suggesting anyone is going to be deprived of a public education. And, no one is suggesting schools will be starved. Will there be ANY students who continue with public education? Yep. In fact, the great majority of them will. And those students will bring the same revenue to their schools as they do now.

It's not at the expense of the poor. The poor aren't paying their share of a rich kid going to a private school. No one is taking anything away from the poor. All that's being suggested is that if the rich, or the middle class, want to send their kids to a better school, the state will assist, to the same amount as it would have assisted with their public education. And, guess what? The poor can take advantage of this too, with scholarship assistance from those same private schools.

So by taking resources away from public schools where the poor will have to stay they aren't taking anything from them? Let them eat cake!

So by taking resources away from public schools where the poor will have to stay they aren't taking anything from them? Let them eat cake!

Guess what? If a school has decreasing enrollment due to demographics, they get fewer dollars from the state. Is that also "taking resources away from public schools?" If a school has 500 students, and the state pays $5K per student, the school gets $2,500,000 from the state. If enrollment drops to 400 students, they only get $2,000,000. It doesn't matter if that decrease is due to people moving away or to people opting out. The per-student expenditure on the part of the state remains EXACTLY THE SAME.

"But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
- President Barack Obama

Guess what? If a school has decreasing enrollment due to demographics, they get fewer dollars from the state. Is that also "taking resources away from public schools?" If a school has 500 students, and the state pays $5K per student, the school gets $2,500,000 from the state. If enrollment drops to 400 students, they only get $2,000,000. It doesn't matter if that decrease is due to people moving away or to people opting out. The per-student expenditure on the part of the state remains EXACTLY THE SAME.

Oh hey and guess what the school has to layoff teachers and combine classes mixing 4/5th and 5th graders. But you know what doesn't change? the overhead on the school and legacy cost of funding promised obligations.

I still don't understand the point of view that says we should be able to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and we should be able to choose what kind of birth control our employer needs to pay for, but the very suggestion that we should be able to choose what school to send our children to is "sickening."

No one is saying you can't choose a private school. Just that you have to pay for it if you do.